<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I was thinking the same thing yesterday when, in the mail, we received the quarterly Northwestern for alums and parents. Very tastefully done, with lots of nice pictures from the botancial gardens. I’m sure it’s coincidential that it arrived during the media intrigue on the “sex in the classroom” but, for those concerned who actually have an attachment to Northwestern, it may have helped to put things back into perspective.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the whole thread, but I can say that in my state to be a marriage and family therapist, you need to have taken a course in human sexuality. I took two, one as an undergrad and one in grad school, and I never watched anyone having sex in class, live or on film, and it has never hindered me in my practice. There are excellent textbooks on human sexuality and a good professor is a good professor, with or without a film. </p>
<p>If she really did this to prove that women can have orgasms, she proved nothing, as Meg Ryan so memorably demonstrated in “When Harry Met Sally.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. Our sex ed class at Emory (1968) had a question and answer session where the questions were written and handed in. I’d put several of the questions and answers right up there with passionate power tools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, a lot of college students will have to make analogous decisions whether to do drugs, engage in group vandalism (think college sports event) in similar circumstances. Its about the strenght of ones convictions in a peer setting. </p>
<p>I would think that a parent with confidence in the maturity and decison making of their student who decided to stick around for what WAS advertized would think that student capable of saying–whoa, I’m out of here — when it gets to power tools.</p>
<p>I love the bait and switch observation. Live sexual stimulation was OK until -------!?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, in my opinion it’s not the group setting that is the issue, it’s the fact that this is part of a graded class and that the decision had to be made in front of an authority figure, who was the prof. Obviously kids will have to make these decisions in front of their peers. But in front of the professor, who is presumed to have superior judgment?</p>
<p>I realize that this event was supposedly not graded, but I’m sure some students may have felt this would affect the prof’s opinion of them, and if he’s the type to make such a showy class, I have to wonder if they’d be right.</p>
<p>And questions and answers are totally different from live sex demonstrations. I expect my children to talk with older children about sex. Like me, they might even hear dirty jokes involving power tools in middle school. I might be younger than some parents here but to me it’s not the act that was shocking, it’s that the prof, in his position, decided it would be a good idea to demonstrate it to a classroom of students with no really compelling reason to do so.</p>
<p>My Human Sexuality class in 1976 didn’t have any power tool demonstrations, but we did take a field trip to a topless strip club and we learned all sorts of slang words/phrases for various sex acts. Most of us took the course because it was known as an easy A.</p>
<p>Just heard about this - fyi NU’s president now has a statement on the NU website indicating great concern for this incident. </p>
<p>This is a weirdo incident and NO WAY reflects the usual educational experience at Northwestern. </p>
<p>I hadn’t heard of this particular prof and I would advise students to avoid him. Yes, the school is big enough that you could have a range of persons employed there; the profs I have heard about are very high calibre.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that the decision to stay could be influenced by the perception that the professor would approve but disagree that the group originally made this decision in front of their peers. When first planned, students could chose to opt in or out of this demonstration, which was billed as something else altogether. At that time, they didn’t have to show up at all. That is a very different thing than being forced to make a spontaneous, proactive decision to leave, all in the span of a few minutes and in front of classmates who are staying put. I do think there could very well be an added element of peer pressure or at least perceived peer pressure to appear to be OK with it. The fact that they may be over 18, notwithstanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the students weren’t exactly cowed into staying. According to the Chicago Tribune, only about 100 of the 600 students in the class stayed for the live demonstration. Were the 100 who stayed there because they were somehow intimidated by the professor’s presence? I doubt it. Not when the professor goes out of his way to tell you the after-class session is entirely optional, will not affect your grade, and may be disturbing or distasteful to some of you because of its graphic nature—and then 5 out of every 6 people sitting next to you walk out of the classroom. Yes, students will often defer to a professor’s supposedly superior professional judgment; but from all reports this professor wasn’t urging students to stay, and indeed seemed to be suggesting that some might prefer to leave.</p>
<p>I’m not defending the decision or the action. As I said before, I think it was a silly, distasteful stunt, and it’s difficult to see that it added anything of educational value to the class. The fact that the professor made it optional is itself telling, though no doubt the uproar would have been much worse if it had been mandatory. But the fact that he agreed to it on the spot in reaction to a proposal initiated by the couple involved rather than as part of a well-considered pedagogical plan (and I take him at his word on that); that he said he agreed to it only because he “couldn’t think of a good reason not to,” rather than because he thought it served some affirmative pedagogical purpose; that he’s been teaching this class since 1994 and until this incident had never once deemed it appropriate or necessary to include live demonstrations of any of the sexual practices discussed in the course; that he now says it’s unlikely he will ever do this sort of thing again because (his words), “It’s not like I think this is a necessary part of understanding kinky people,” all says to me it really was just a shocking stunt that served no educational purpose. </p>
<p>The couple are self-proclaimed exhibitionists. They saw an opportunity to perform before a live audience, put that proposal on the table, apparently caught the professor flat-footed, and he “couldn’t think of a reason to say no.” Really dumb on his part, reflecting really poor professional judgment. The reason to say no is the same reason he had never believed it necessary to include live sex demonstrations in his class for the past 17 years; it just doesn’t add anything of substantial educational value, and it threatens to cheapen and coarsen and sensationalize the course, thereby undercutting its legitimate academic content.</p>
<p>bclintonk - well said.</p>
<p>I obviously think that this served no educational purpose and was gratuitous and wrong. However, even if I were someone who didn’t feel that way, I ALSO think he didn’t stop for one minute to consider the need for greater reflection on the part of his students. He gave the students only moments to think about this, which showed disregard and inconsideration for anyone but himself. After all, it’s not usually a university professor urging you to do drugs, engage in group vandalism or make other impulsive decisions, 07Dad. This guy went to great efforts well before the event to warn students about what would take place. So it didn’t cross his mind for a moment that it should be something he, let alone his students, should think about for more than a couple of minutes? I simply don’t buy it. My bet is that it was all pre-planned.</p>
<p>Anyone heard of any complaints by NU students who were involved as subjects in the bait and switch? The Chicago paper reported that there had not been any complaints filed with the police.</p>
<p>The people for whom this could have been a very traumatic experience are women who were raped or sexually assaulted in the past. I would not expect them to complain publicly however.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would they be taking this type of class to begin with? Surely this wouldn’t be the only thing happening in the class that could be potentially traumatic.</p>
<p>Oh, females enrolled in a human sexuality class who were past victims of rape or sexual assault would have opted to stay to watch an orgasm movie in mixed company, but would have been traumatized by the live performance? Were there even any women who stuck around for the after class portion? </p>
<p>OOPs–cross post with TCBH</p>
<p>Was the difference the involvement of the girl’s boyfriend? I would think that the apparently enthusiastic volunteerism of the couple and the fact that the male was the giver, rather than receiver of the orgasm, would be therapeudic.</p>
<p>^
Puhleeze 07DAD, the boyfriend was not the giver, the saw was! ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? So suppose for a moment this happened the way both the professor and the couple involved say it happened; that the after-class live demonstration wasn’t something the professor had planned, but instead was a proposal sprung on him at the last minute by the couple, who asked to stay around after class and do a live demonstration for anyone who was interested in seeing it, take it or leave it. At that point the professor has only a few choices: first, just say no (which I think would have been the sensible choice under the circumstances). Second, just say yes (which he did do, according to him because he “couldn’t think of a good reason to say no”). Third, tell the couple, “I can’t think of a reason to say ‘no’ right off the cuff, but you’re really putting me on the spot, and I need some time to think about this; so not today, but possibly at another time.” That would have been better than what he did, and likely would have led to the (sensible) considered judgment that it served no real pedagogical purpose, as live demonstrations of sex acts had never been something he thought necessary or useful in the past. Or fourth, he could say, “Yes, but not today, because I need to give my students some time to think about whether they want to attend.” I think that fourth alternative might have been worse, actually, because then it creates a kind of build-up of suspense and gets the whole class and perhaps the whole university community buzzing about it, potentially creating more pressure on the students to attend and to rearrange their schedules to make time to attend (something a professor certainly can’t expect when adding an unscheduled optional after-class session onto the regular class time on the spot, as apparently happened here). It’s only if you’ve already judged him guilty of planning the whole thing in advance and then lying about—something there’s not one shred of evidence to support, by the way—that you can think it was somehow selfish of him to spring it on his students at the last minute. If the professor and the couple are telling the truth about the sequence of events, the proposal is something that was sprung on him. He handled it poorly and without thinking it through; now in retrospect he seems to be acknowledging that it was inconsistent with the way he’s taught this course, and what he’s always thought important to include in the course, for 16 years. So it was dumb, dumb, dumb to agree to it on the spot. But on the facts as we know them, I think it’s pretty difficult to indict him of anything much worse than that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. Except he didn’t urge his students to do drugs, engage in vandalism, or do anything else illegal. He apparently didn’t even urge them to stay for the optional after-class session. By all accounts he made it perfectly clear that the session was optional and their attendance would in no way affect their grades, and he cautioned that what they would be seeing if they stayed would be very graphic and that some of them might not be comfortable with that, and if so they should probably leave. So he wasn’t urging them to do something impulsive; he was apparently urging them to exercise their considered judgment and stay only if they were genuinely interested in seeing something non-essential to the course and wouldn’t be offended or disturbed by it. And the fact that 500 of the 600 students in the class actually got up and left while only 100 stayed strongly suggests that the students felt perfectly capable of making that considered judgment for themselves. They weren’t stampeded into anything, unless some were stampeded into leaving by the mass exodus at that point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think it’s a good thing that he warned his students in advance about what would take place, don’t you? And I don’t know about “well before the event.” It sounds like he warned them, gave them a short break to think about it and for those who weren’t staying to clear the room, then allowed the couple to proceed. But I think you’re trying to have it both ways; both to suggest the fact that he warned the students about the graphic content somehow implies that the whole thing was premeditated, but that the warning was inadequate because it gave the students inadequate time to think it through. To me the fact that only 100 of 600 stayed pretty strongly indicates they DID think it through, and over 80% of them thought better of it. And giving them a week or two to think about it might in a way signal that this was something important, possibly creating more pressure for them to attend. But if instead of imputing to him dark motives and advance knowledge and so on that there’s really no evidence to support, I’m content to say, “This was just really, really dumb and ill-considered; it shouldn’t have happened, and it shows really poor judgment on this professor’s part that it did.” No need to pile on with additional charges that just aren’t supported by the record.</p>
<p>bclintonk nails it. Wait, maybe that’s not the right expression to use on this thread… ;)</p>
<p>My mother attended NU eons ago, and she was laughing about the news. My handyman father wanted to know what brand of saw was used. I might be more stunned by their reactions than by the original news item.</p>
<p>The more I think about it, the more I think it was idiotic to allow this to go on, it just didn’t have any value. Knowing the professor’s reputation, it wouldn’t surprise me if he allowed the couple to do their act and figured he could observe the reaction of the kids, given the way he seems to do his ‘real’ research it wouldn’t surprise me if he did this deliberately. </p>
<p>I have been in human sexuality classes, have people I know who have been asked to come in and talk to them about various aspects of sexuality, and I suspect none of them would think this was a great idea. Among other things, it is a great way to give the puritans a chance to get these kinds of classes cancelled. </p>
<p>One comment kind of bothered me "I worry about strict parents who are already disinclined to send their daughters to college because of bad immoral influences. Yes, they are out there. How many more young ladies will be prevented from getting an appropriate education because of stunts like this? "</p>
<p>The question is, do we drag down discourse at a university to cater to the lowest common denominator? Do we ban gay groups on campus or ban the teaching of evolution or geology because they conflict with the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians?" I also find it interesting that immediately it becomes a strict family wants to protect their daughter, does that mean sexuality is okay for a boy and not a girl?</p>
<p>Someone else mentioned what about if one of the girls had been sexually traumatized at some point and this would traumatize her to see this. The problem with this is there are all kinds of traumas in the world, all kinds of bad experiences, and if we tailor things to minimize the pain of someone who might be potentially traumatized, we might not have a lot we can do because odds are at some point, someone will be traumatized. A kid from Japan in a world history class might be traumatized to see images of Hiroshima, or might be traumatized seeing graphic depictions of war crimes committed during WWII by Japanese troops…do you not teach that, when it is relevant to the topic?</p>
<p>I think that courses like this are relevant, because quite frankly I think any information about sexuality is better then none. Given the ignorance about sexuality that comes from ‘the old fashioned way’ (like kids convincing themselves that anal sex is not really having sex, doesn’t violate taboos, and worse, doing it without protection or information), or given the fact that something like 60% of people cheat, and a lot of that is due to sexual incompatibility or boredom in the marriage, and for me it is a no brainer that classes like this (sans live demonstrations) are a good thing. </p>
<p>It is interesting that this discussion revolved around a class in the bd/sm area of sexuality. People into BD/SM seem to spend a lot of time on education, the various groups and conventions and such I have read about seem to spend a lot of time on education, especially about safety, it is something I think that the plain old sex community could learn from:)</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the <em>regular</em> class had 600 students, that 100 decided to attend an after class demonstration, that it was discussed in advance of the original class, and that on the actual day, only a few students left when it became obvious what was going to happen. </p>
<p>My remarks about drugs and vandalism were strictly in response to Dad07’s remarks. He was attempting to suggest that students have to make quick decisions about stupid behaviors all the time. My comment was that yeah, they do but not usually because a university professor is asking for a snap decision (on something that some students might have decided in another way if they had more than a few minutes to think about it). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. I somehow doubt it would have been any great hardship at all to get students to reschedule. And would community buzz attract additional students? Maybe, but so what? It would, as I said, also give every member of that class more time to think about their decision to attend. If even a few rethought their attendance on that basis, then yes, it was inconsiderate of the professor - regardless of whether the thing was pre-planned by him or not. </p>
<p>And, you are right, I don’t have any direct evidence that the stunt was preplanned other than to say he’s a bright guy, knows about ALL the negatives, and fights against that on a regular basis. It’s just not a stretch to imagine that he wanted to push the envelope for its own sake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you would not agree with the statement “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” No credit/blame to the trigger man (so to speak) for the happy ending?</p>
<p>I get tickled with the poster who was surprised that her dad merely wanted the brand name of the saw. Dad knows what’s important. A tool that takes only 3 minutes from laydown to lift off. Power to the Geezers! </p>
<p>The Chicago paper reported that one student’s mom was there for the performance. I’d love to hear her take.</p>
<p>The UK Daily Mail coverage says that the professor’s statement that there were numerous explicit advance warnings given that what was up next was a live demonstration of bringing a woman to orgasm with a sex tool was confirmed by two different students who were there. They also confirmed that there were some who left. </p>
<p>BTW–the results of the porn research that went into the 1970 Report of the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography indicated that graphic written and film porn was a turn on for approximtely 1/3, a turn off for approximtely 1/3 and was of interest at first, but became boring with repeated exposure for approximately 1/3.</p>
<p>I bet that the 1/6th of the class who stayed for the orgasm film and the subset of those who didn’t leave after the warnings concerning the live performance weren’t likely traumatized.</p>